Voting out anti-abortion MP Rachael Harder -

Voting out anti-abortion MP Rachael Harder

Members of the House of Commons’ Status of Women committee made their voices heard — one determined ‘no’ at a time.

Conservative MP Rachael Harder rises during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday, Sept.27, 2017. (Adrian Wyld/CP)

Conservative MP Rachael Harder rises during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday, Sept.27, 2017. (Adrian Wyld/CP)

Mutiny was preordained, but Rachael Harder had to sit through the motion anyway. Passport photo-strong, she showed no emotion, revealing nothing but the halves of calves naked below the hem of her dress. The motion was to elect her as chair.

“Ms. Damoff?” asked the clerk. “No,” voted Pam Damoff. “Ms. Jordan?” asked the clerk. “No,” said Bernadette Jordan. “Mr. Fraser?” asked the clerk. “No,” said Sean Fraser. Seven rejections were logged in cruel bureaucratic due process.

Harder is the member of Parliament for Lethbridge, Alta., and a member of the House of Commons Status of Women committee. Convention has it that the chair must be a Conservative, meaning her, Karen Vecchio or the moustachioed Martin Shields. Harder was nominated last Tuesday, but the committee walked out in protest because Harder has given money to health clinics that refuse to offer abortions. Surely, they argued, she cannot support women’s rights, so they took her down, “no” by merciless “no.”

“If the committee wishes, you can proceed by a secret ballot,” the clerk suggested. No, the committee wished to make the discomfort public. Harder sat directly across from most of the nay-sayers, close enough to pass the pepper had been sharing a meal.

READ: A beer with Andrew Scheer: Tories’ leader, popcorn addict… feminist?

Harder granted $11,681 to two pregnancy clinics in Lethbridge to hire summer employees in 2016, using money that MPs were given to create local jobs. The clinics have mandates suggesting that every child has the right to be born. The same year, Harder supported a private member’s bill that moved to make it a separate crime to kill a fetus when harming a pregnant woman. Harder has declined requests from journalists to detail her anti-abortion/pro-life profile.

Committee members worried a Chairwoman Harder would make witnesses uncomfortable, although logic doesn’t necessarily connect her abortion position to her ability to plan and time meetings. Marilyn Gladu, who served as chair for a year and a half, spoke on Parliament Hill this year during the National March for Life, and NDP MP Sheila Malcolmson said the committee was pleased with Gladu’s chairwomanship.

Entrepreneurship and fair hiring are highest on the committee’s agenda, so even if Harder strongly opposed abortion, her view may not have affected much of their business. In fact, if the committee did vote on abortion topics, it might have benefitted from a social conservative being chair because, except as tie-breakers or when the committee is considering a private bill, the chairperson does not vote.

But so-long, so-con; the committee voted Harder out and nominated a reluctant Karen Vecchio instead. “Although I appreciate the nomination,” Vecchio tried, “I would like to back down from that nomination.” The committee did not consent to withdraw the motion and elected their plan B, like it or not.

Meeting adjourned, Harder had to strategize to exit the building via escalator rather than elevator, avoiding the scrum where an NDP member was telling the world: “It’s impossible to have her as a spokesperson for our work.” But Harder hung back a moment in the room, rising from her cushioned, arm-rested seat that would never be the chair. She waited there until one woman, a staffer perhaps, came up to her and consoled her with a hug.


Voting out anti-abortion MP Rachael Harder

  1. Truly sad to see that Rachel Harder, a loving person who affirms life in all it stages, should be subject to such bullying. O Canada where will the social engineering lead us?

  2. I can’t believe that anyone still supports her views. Anti-abortionists lost their mandate in 1986 when the Supreme Court of Canada made their ruling. Today, close to 75% of Canadians are pro-choice. Get over it people!!!

    • There was no ‘mandate’ then, there is even less to-day. Let’s have that vote?

      • It’s called ‘equality’. It’s in the Constitution.

  3. Glad she was voted out, but why are you talking about her legs? Why are you talking about her appearance? Can we not just treat women politians like actual politians? Stop commenting on the bodies and appearances of females. It has nothing to do with the story and nothing to do with their jobs. Just stop.

  4. Groupthink at its tyrannical worst. Canadian ‘women’ should be ashamed.

    • Why is it YOUR choice what women do?

  5. Only the Conservatives would have a Pro-lifer on a Status of Women Committee. While I am a fiscal conservative I refuse to support the Conservative Party as long as they continue to harbour so many social conservatives in their party. I miss the old Progressive Conservative party.

    • Why is killing babies so important? What if you are wrong? Why would more research not be a good idea? I’ve heard some compelling evidence that live begins at conception, despite what the news tells you.. now if that’s true, shouldn’t we look into this further?

      • Abortion has been around for thousands of years….it doesn’t require your study or approval.

    • There currently is only one major party that does not discriminate — and that is the Conservatives. JT is flying to Washington shortly to speak at a women’s conference and brag about his parties tolerance and inclusiveness — at the same time his party will not accept anyone who is pro-life. The hypocrisy is truly sad.

      • It’s 2017. Why do we have a “Status of Women” committee?

  6. LOL These people are fascists. pure and simple. This is ANTI-DEMOCRATIC. I don’t care what your world view is, doesn’t make you right.

  7. Liberals are extremists of the ideology of narcissism. It is a mental disorder.

    Science has proven time and again that a fetus is a living, distinct human individual, and absolutely not simply the woman’s body as claimed in the erroneous Roe vs Wade decision.

    The extremists don’t dispute the science – they can’t refute it.

    They simply repeat that their narcissistic lives are entitled to kill the living innocent helpless human beings that they deem inconvenient.

    It is simply genocide that all liberals advocate.

    • Their choice, not yours.

      • Their choice is murder.

        You demonstrate my point exactly.

        • Not your body, not your choice. MYOB

          • Not their body, not their choice.

          • It’s not their body?? That’s insanity.

          • Science proved that the fetus is not her body.

            There are many choices we make in life that cannot be undone.

            We tend to learn to make these choices carefully.

            Every pregnant woman participated in the only activity that would invite a new life to temporarily reside within her body.

            That was the limit of her choice.

            Once the new life exists her choice to kill it is murder.

          • Science didn’t ‘prove’ any such thing.

            Stop making stuff up.

            You want to decide something for 52% of the world’s population?

            You want forced pregnancies? Waddaya gonna have…..breeding farms?

            Using women as incubators?

            Sorry, but adults make their own decisions….good or bad…..without you.

            Now stop being absurd, and MYOB

          • Nobody has the right to decide to murder.

          • Men have been trying to control women this way for centuries.

            Burned thousands of them at the stake.

            Didn’t work then, won’t work now

          • A fetus is NOT a parasite. Joshua Rosenau had to resigned as head of the NCSE for making that false statement. The whole story was published in Evolution News & Science Today.

            The National Center for Science Education, a Darwinist public relations firm that supports litigation against educators and students who question Darwinian orthodoxy in public schools, has tried to whitewash the ugly history of scientific racism and its Darwinian roots. Yet the strain of racism and denial of full humanity to children in the womb runs deep in the scientific world to this day: DNA pioneer, Nobel laureate, and staunch Darwinist James Watson resigned his position at Cold Spring Harbor because of his claim that black people are less intelligent than white people, and the NCSE’s Program and Policy Director Joshua Rosenau has on his personal blog drawn moral parallels between unborn children and cancer and has compared the relation between a pregnant mother and her child to the relationship between a host and a parasite.

        • Murdering babies doesn’t protect women.

          It makes them murderers and targets of punishment.

          Like all murderers are.

          • Keep your religion to yourself.

          • It’s not religion, it’s science and justice and I have no intent to keep it to myself.

          • It’s not science…..just your belief


          • Human biology is science.

            Everyone’s life begins at conception and progresses until death.

            Killing a helpless innocent human life is murder.

            You deny science and logic but profess that you hate religion.

            What are you, 100% opinion?

            You know what opinions are like?

            What would the age of uninformed opinion be called?

          • Technically a fetus is a parasite…..and tt’s the woman’s choice what to do about it.

            Your opinion is irrelevant.

          • No, wrong again.

            Technically a parasite is a different species from the host.

            A fetus is a living human baby.

            Perhaps you should keep your uninformed opinion to yourself.

          • Sorry nope.

            an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host’s expense.

            a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

          • No you’re wrong.

            When the woman benefits from the process, the relationship is not parasitic.

            Since the benefits of pregnanxy and motherhood will be lost on the likes of you I’ll prove it so even you can understand.

            The woman benefits from the process Of pregnancy by successfully performing the only activity that can result in pregnancy.

          • Ahh the ‘Gone With The Wind’ scenario eh?

            We skip the incest, the pedophilia and rape part?

            Or the failed or unused birth control?

            Or the 6000 genetic birth defects?

            Hey, it’s been fun pal…..but you slipped off the edge of reality a long time ago.


          • Wow Chip! That is quite the collection of words, more a rant than an argument based on any form of logic or reason. Just what exactly are you trying to communicate?

      • Society has established a legal point at which we consider someone “alive” – and that point is when the baby is outside the womb. But life begins at conception. That’s the point at which it has its own, unique DNA. So I can understand the pro-life side; science is on their side.

        That said, I’m not advocating we make abortion illegal. But the issue is unlikely to ever go away, for the reason above.

        • Exactly.

          The decision to murder is an extremist, ideological one based on narcissistic disorder.

          That is where liberal society has taken us.

          Unchecked, that is our legacy in history.

          No murder doesn’t go away until it’s forced to.

  8. 1 – what she was wearing and how her legs looked have no bearing on this story and if you needed ‘fluff’ and ‘filler’ for your word count, perhaps talk about the history of the Committee instead of what she was wearing.

    2 – to all the men who think it’s YOUR decision how the fetus inside of MY body should be handled – let all the women decide how YOUR sperm shall be handled, howzat? You have ONE ‘choice’ in the creation of the life – whether accidental, on purpose, or by force. By deciding for the woman what HER option is for the rest of her life, you are NOT advocating for an unborn fetus – you are advocating for more women dying by back-alley abortions, false ‘herbal’ remedies, and more orphaned children.

    If you’re so keen on protecting the rights of the unborn, how about the rights of those who ARE born? Are you a foster parent? Have you adopted? Are you actively involved in helping those born with severe birth defects lead a fulfilling life? Are you advocating for the mental and physical health of women who, if they give birth, might die? Are you raising their other children if they do die? If you answered ‘no’ to any of these, you can either keep your opinions to yourself, or keep your penis in your pants.

    • Murder the solution of murderers Mary.

      • Instead of repeating ad nauseum your mindless nonsense … answer Mary’s questions Rob…. what have YOU done lately for the children you insist must be born, and the women who bore them?

        • Robmisek is an American mansplainer…Yanks are having a major push on anti-abortion this month. LOL

        • How do you help murderers not murder?

  9. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Prior to a medical professional performing an abortion, the patient undergoes at least some forms of counseling. If after said counseling, the patient still insists on having the procedure done, it shouldn’t concern anybody else. It’s not an uninformed decision.
    The sad part of this discussion is that some, attempt to defend the “right to life” based on… religious mythology. Well, the good news is that not all females can be Virgin Mary’s!

    • You don’t find it “sad” that anyone would defend the murder of helpless innocent human babies for any reason at all?

      Your perspective is skewed.

  10. Anybody watching Alias Grace? Slippery slope that turning back the clock. Keep vigilant.

    • I’m sure that argument was used during the dark ages.

      • In case you missed it the program shows what it was like when women had to rely on back street abortionists.
        Isn’t that where the present day anti abortionists want to go?

      • Please note all the calls for vote and for studies regarding when life begins etc. More of this is what we can expect if Scheer ever gets into power He has said the his government will not initiate not introduce the abortion issue but he has signaled strongly that he would welcome the issue being raised by his back bench.

        He is signalling to this followers that he is with them and he will let them(or encourage them considering how he had promoted Harder to his shadow cabinet.).
        Despite all the twisting and shouting about freedom etc the upshot of the CPC efforts is to ultimately change the laws and remove freedom and the right to chose from Canadian women.

        • Ha

          Look how afraid you are of the science.

          How many more will be murdered while you try to maintain that charade?

          You murderers are the religious zealots of these Dark ages.

  11. Come of it- all this lugubrious hand wringing. Scheer knew that she was unacceptable to the rest, he just wanted to stick his finger in the eye of the pro choice people to whom he is implacably opposed and to pander to his social Conservative base.

  12. Anyone catch the debacle at Queen’s Park this week?

    Liberal’s tabled their safe-zone legislation around abortion clinics. It was fully and unanimously passed by the Conservatives — only to be voted down by the Liberal party.

    That’s right — the Liberal party voted down their OWN legislation to create safe zones around abortion providers. Now who is being divisive? Now who is supporting the safe access to abortion clinics? Now who is wasting our money and time in the Ontario legislature?